Post by rmarks1 on Aug 12, 2019 10:45:25 GMT -5

Plenty of quotes here.

In his 1932 The Doctrine of Fascism, Benito Mussolini quotes approvingly historian Ernst Renan for his “pre-fascist intuitions”:

“The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature’s plans, which care only for the species and seem ready to sacrifice the individual.”

In his 1784 “Review of Herder,” Immanuel Kant wrote: “nature allows us to see nothing else than that it abandons individuals to complete destruction and only maintains the type.” (37/53)

And in “Idea for a Universal History with Cosmopolitan Intent” (1784), Kant wrote: “It appears that nature is utterly unconcerned that man live well, only that he bring himself to the point where his conduct makes him worthy of life and well-being.” (31/20)

Also this from Kant’s “Speculative Beginning of Human History” (1786): “this path that for the species leads to progress from the worse to the better does not do so for the individual.” (53/115)

So: A connection from 18th-century philosopher Kant to 19th-century historian Renan to 20th-century politician Mussolini. It’s important to note that between Kant and Mussolini stand Hegel, Marx, and Nietzsche, all of whom developed the sacrifice-individuals-to-improve-the-species theme.

Further, both Kant and Mussolini state approvingly that nature uses war to improve the species.

Here is Kant: “Man wills concord; but nature better knows what is good for the species: she wills discord.” (“Idea …” 32/21)

Kant again: “At the stage of culture at which the human race still stands, war is an indispensable means for bringing it to a still higher stage.” (“Speculative …” 58/121) Note the “indispensable.”

And again: “Thus, thanks be to nature for the incompatibility, for the distasteful, competitive vanity, for the insatiable desire to possess and also to rule. Without them, all of humanity’s excellent natural capacities would have lain eternally dormant.” (“Idea …” 32/21)

Now Mussolini: “Fascism does not, generally speaking, believe in the possibility or utility of perpetual peace. It therefore discards pacifism as a cloak for cowardly supine renunciation in contradistinction to self-sacrifice. War alone keys up all human energies to their maximum tension and sets the seal of nobility on those peoples who have the courage to face it.”

Again, between Kant and Mussolini were Hegel, Marx, and Nietzsche, all of whom urged violence and war as necessary steps towards human progress.

Sources:

The Kant essays are collected in Perpetual Peace and Other Essays, translated by Ted Humphrey (Hackett, 1983).

Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 11:36:31 GMT -5

Not surprising. Hicks already believes that Kant is a "Postmodernist", it only makes sense for him to link all the people he considers evil into one grand postmodern communist fascist liberal truth-destroyer conspiracy.

Post by rmarks1 on Aug 12, 2019 11:44:44 GMT -5

Not surprising. Hicks already believes that Kant is a "Postmodernist", it only makes sense for him to link all the people he considers evil into one grand postmodern communist fascist liberal truth-destroyer conspiracy.

None of what you said here provides any evidence that Hicks is wrong though, does it?

Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 19:44:38 GMT -5

I have no counter evidence proving that leftist Nazi postmodernists are *not* working together globally to destroy objectivist truth.

But Hicks never made that claim

Of course not, Hicks makes no claims at all. He only juxtaposes quotes.

Like I am doing here:

"It must become clear to everybody in Germany, even to the last milkmaid, that Polishness is equal to subhumanity. Poles, Jews and Gypsies are on the same inferior level." -- Joseph Goebbels

"... why are the Arabs against Israel? The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures... Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it’s the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are." -- Ayn Rand

"Reason ... has to be used in and by a man’s own mind... Deprived of the ability to reason, man becomes a docile, pliant, impotent chunk of clay, to be shaped into any subhuman form..." "Western civilization was the child and product of reason... In all other civilizations, reason has always been the menial servant—the handmaiden—of mysticism. ... The conflict of reason versus mysticism is the issue of life or death..." -- Ayn Rand

"Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group . . . and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. " -- Ayn Rand

"To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole." -- Joseph Goebbels

Post by rmarks1 on Aug 14, 2019 20:21:22 GMT -5

Of course not, Hicks makes no claims at all. He only juxtaposes quotes.

Wrong.

Hicks clearly does make claims. Perhaps you missed them on your first reading. Take a look.

So: A connection from 18th-century philosopher Kant to 19th-century historian Renan to 20th-century politician Mussolini. It’s important to note that between Kant and Mussolini stand Hegel, Marx, and Nietzsche, all of whom developed the sacrifice-individuals-to-improve-the-species theme.

Further, both Kant and Mussolini state approvingly that nature uses war to improve the species.

Here is Kant: “Man wills concord; but nature better knows what is good for the species: she wills discord.” (“Idea …” 32/21)

Kant again: “At the stage of culture at which the human race still stands, war is an indispensable means for bringing it to a still higher stage.” (“Speculative …” 58/121) Note the “indispensable.”

And again: “Thus, thanks be to nature for the incompatibility, for the distasteful, competitive vanity, for the insatiable desire to possess and also to rule. Without them, all of humanity’s excellent natural capacities would have lain eternally dormant.” (“Idea …” 32/21)

Now Mussolini: “Fascism does not, generally speaking, believe in the possibility or utility of perpetual peace. It therefore discards pacifism as a cloak for cowardly supine renunciation in contradistinction to self-sacrifice. War alone keys up all human energies to their maximum tension and sets the seal of nobility on those peoples who have the courage to face it.”

Again, between Kant and Mussolini were Hegel, Marx, and Nietzsche, all of whom urged violence and war as necessary steps towards human progress.

The claim is that all of these philosophers and Mussolini urged violence and war as necessary steps towards human progress. The quotes are just there to prove his point.

Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 20:41:54 GMT -5

Then I guess you posted the wrong article, because I see no supporting quotes of Hegel, Marx and Nietzsche urging "violence and war as necessary steps towards human progress." Nor do I see any quotes linking these together logically in any way or form.

Then again, why would Hicks need to do that when he is already a correct believer speaking correct truth? It is self-evident from common sense and basic logic that he is correct in what he says, since his perceptions are objectively true.

Post by rmarks1 on Aug 14, 2019 21:18:01 GMT -5

Then I guess you posted the wrong article, because I see no supporting quotes of Hegel, Marx and Nietzsche urging "violence and war as necessary steps towards human progress." Nor do I see any quotes linking these together logically in any way or form.

But there are plenty of quotes from both Kant and Mussolini claiming that violence and war aid human progress. And that is the main part of Hicks' point.

Then again, why would Hicks need to do that when he is already a correct believer speaking correct truth? It is self-evident from common sense and basic logic that he is correct in what he says, since his perceptions are objectively true.

Really? Where does Hicks say that he a a "correct believer speaking correct truth?" He doesn't.

And you have said nothing about the clear similarity between the quotes from Kant and Mussolini.

Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2019 9:34:21 GMT -5

Then I guess you posted the wrong article, because I see no supporting quotes of Hegel, Marx and Nietzsche urging "violence and war as necessary steps towards human progress." Nor do I see any quotes linking these together logically in any way or form.

But there are plenty of quotes from both Kant and Mussolini claiming that violence and war aid human progress. And that is the main part of Hicks' point.

Yes, the main part of Hicks' "point" is that he juxtaposes Kant quotes and Mussolini quotes. I already said that, remember?

And you have said nothing about the clear similarity between the quotes from Kant and Mussolini.

Hicks never mentions a "clear similarity" in this text. Are you talking about a different text?

All you are doing here by calling it a "juxtaposition" is trying to hide the fact that Hicks found strong evidence that Mussolini and Kant both liked WAR.

I am calling it a juxtaposition because that is literally what he is doing:

Juxtaposition is an act or instance of placing two elements close together or side by side. This is often done in order to compare/contrast the two, to show similarities or differences, etc. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juxtaposition

And where is your evidence that Kant "liked war"? He says nothing of the sort in the quotes Hicks supplied. In ther last quote, Kant uses the terms "distasteful" and "competitive vanity". Does that suggest to you that he is talking about a thing he likes?

Hicks never mentions a "clear similarity" in this text. Are you talking about a different text?

LOL! Hicks didn't have to say that there was a similarity.The similarity between the views of Kant and Mussolini that war is good for society is clearly there for all to see.

If Hicks saw what you see in his text, then why didn't he write it down? Do you have evidence that something or someone prevented him from doing that?

Please remember that it is customary to support a claim with evidence.I can see no textual evidence to support your claim, perhaps you want to point out a direct quote?

And if you are referring to other texts where he is more clear about the similarity he sees between Kant and Mussolini, please post the link here.

All you are doing here by calling it a "juxtaposition" is trying to hide the fact that Hicks found strong evidence that Mussolini and Kant both liked WAR.

I am calling it a juxtaposition because that is literally what he is doing:

Juxtaposition is an act or instance of placing two elements close together or side by side. This is often done in order to compare/contrast the two, to show similarities or differences, etc. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juxtaposition

LOL! Yes, Hicks is trying to show similarities between Kant and Mussolini's views on war. And he's don't a pretty good job of it too.

And where is your evidence that Kant "liked war"? He says nothing of the sort in the quotes Hicks supplied. In ther last quote, Kant uses the terms "distasteful" and "competitive vanity". Does that suggest to you that he is talking about a thing he likes?

As usual, you left out the full quote. This is what Kant REALLY said:

“Thus, thanks be to nature for the incompatibility, for the distasteful, competitive vanity, for the insatiable desire to possess and also to rule. Without them, all of humanity’s excellent natural capacities would have lain eternally dormant.” (“Idea …” 32/21)

So yes, Kant is talking about something that he not only likes, but he is THANKFUL for it.

Kant is also talking about war to bring culture to a higher stage. Are you claiming that Kant doesn't like higher stages?

LOL! Hicks didn't have to say that there was a similarity.The similarity between the views of Kant and Mussolini that war is good for society is clearly there for all to see.

If Hicks saw what you see in his text, then why didn't he write it down? Do you have evidence that something or someone prevented him from doing that?

Hicks didn't have to write anything down. Kant already did that for him by saying "war is an indispensable means for bringing it to a still higher stage.”

Please remember that it is customary to support a claim with evidence.I can see no textual evidence to support your claim, perhaps you want to point out a direct quote?

Sure. Kant's quote is already there.

"war is an indispensable means for bringing it to a still higher stage.”

You probably missed it when you read the text.

And if you are referring to other texts where he is more clear about the similarity he sees between Kant and Mussolini, please post the link here.

I already did that. You probably didn't read the whole post. Here is another quote from Kant:

“Thus, thanks be to nature for the incompatibility, for the distasteful, competitive vanity, for the insatiable desire to possess and also to rule. Without them, all of humanity’s excellent natural capacities would have lain eternally dormant.”

Which still only means that war is necessary to achieve good things (a higher stage of culture), not that war itself is good.

Much like how Randians believe that *governments* are necessary to achieve good things (a free market), but that governments are not in principle a good thing in all circumstances.

I am calling it a juxtaposition because that is literally what he is doing:

LOL! Yes, Hicks is trying to show similarities between Kant and Mussolini's views on war.

Does he? Where does he say that?

And where is your evidence that Kant "liked war"? He says nothing of the sort in the quotes Hicks supplied. In ther last quote, Kant uses the terms "distasteful" and "competitive vanity". Does that suggest to you that he is talking about a thing he likes?

As usual, you left out the full quote. This is what Kant REALLY said:

“Thus, thanks be to nature for the incompatibility, for the distasteful, competitive vanity, for the insatiable desire to possess and also to rule. Without them, all of humanity’s excellent natural capacities would have lain eternally dormant.” (“Idea …” 32/21)

So yes, Kant is talking about something that he not only likes, but he is THANKFUL for it.

You are re-posting quotes, but you don't explain your reasoning. Which of these words suggest that he likes war, or that he is "thankful for it"?

Kant is also talking about war to bring culture to a higher stage. Are you claiming that Kant doesn't like higher stages?

Are you claiming that necessary things are always good things? Does that mean you consider governments always good?

If Hicks saw what you see in his text, then why didn't he write it down? Do you have evidence that something or someone prevented him from doing that?

Hicks didn't have to write anything down.

He did if he wanted to convey meaning to an audience without telepathy (which as far as I can tell doesn't work).

Kant already did that for him by saying "war is an indispensable means for bringing it to a still higher stage.”

Really? So Kant is speaking for Hicks? How is that possible, given that Hicks is living here and now, whereas Kant has been dead for over 200 years?

Please remember that it is customary to support a claim with evidence.I can see no textual evidence to support your claim, perhaps you want to point out a direct quote?

Sure. Kant's quote is already there.

"war is an indispensable means for bringing it to a still higher stage.”

Again, Kant has been dead for over 200 years when Hicks started writing his blog post. Kant cannot explain to us what Hicks meant. It would literally violate the causal principle for him to do so.

You probably missed it when you read the text.

Yes, I did apparently miss the part where Hicks - not Kant, Hicks, remember him, the guy who wrote this article? - explains his argument, because I still can't find it in the text. Can you post it here?

Which still only means that war is necessary to achieve good things (a higher stage of culture), not that war itself is good.

Much like how Randians believe that *governments* are necessary to achieve good things (a free market), but that governments are not in principle a good thing in all circumstances.

Hello, McAnswer. We are talking about WAR here. War Always kills people. Government does not "always" kill people, especially if the death penalty is outlawed. Once again you are comparing Apples and Oranges.

The fact is that Kant justified WAR and war always kills.

What you are doing here is like someone on trial for mass murder who makes his defense by saying "Yes I killed all these people, but I really didn't want to."

LOL! Yes, Hicks is trying to show similarities between Kant and Mussolini's views on war.

Does he? Where does he say that?

LOL! Since when do you have to explicitly say that you are going to make a comparison before you make a comparison? When did they pass that law? The fact is that he actually is comparing Kant to Mussolini. You're grasping at straws here.

As usual, you left out the full quote. This is what Kant REALLY said:

“Thus, thanks be to nature for the incompatibility, for the distasteful, competitive vanity, for the insatiable desire to possess and also to rule. Without them, all of humanity’s excellent natural capacities would have lain eternally dormant.” (“Idea …” 32/21)

So yes, Kant is talking about something that he not only likes, but he is THANKFUL for it.

You are re-posting quotes, but you don't explain your reasoning. Which of these words suggest that he likes war, or that he is "thankful for it"?

How about "Thanks be to nature..."?

Kant is also talking about war to bring culture to a higher stage. Are you claiming that Kant doesn't like higher stages?

Are you claiming that necessary things are always good things? Does that mean you consider governments always good?

So you agree that Kant says that war is a necessary thing!

Hicks didn't have to write anything down.

He did if he wanted to convey meaning to an audience without telepathy (which as far as I can tell doesn't work).

Ho hum. As usual you don't give a complete quote. This is what I actually wrote: "Hicks didn't have to write anything down. Kant already did that for him by saying "war is an indispensable means for bringing it to a still higher stage.”

Why did you leave out the part where I said "Kant already did that for him"? By quoting Kan, Hicks is offering a reason.

Kant already did that for him by saying "war is an indispensable means for bringing it to a still higher stage.”

Really? So Kant is speaking for Hicks? How is that possible, given that Hicks is living here and now, whereas Kant has been dead for over 200 years?

Well Duh! Kant wrote words down and his words are still here, aren't they.

Sure. Kant's quote is already there.

Again, Kant has been dead for over 200 years when Hicks started writing his blog post. Kant cannot explain to us what Hicks meant. It would literally violate the causal principle for him to do so.

Apparently you never heard of "writing." It's a wonderful system for recording thoughts and it can even work long after a person is dead.

You probably missed it when you read the text.

Yes, I did apparently miss the part where Hicks - not Kant, Hicks, remember him, the guy who wrote this article? - explains his argument, because I still can't find it in the text. Can you post it here?

The article was written for intelligent people who can recognize the fact that similar quotes from two different people can indicate that these two people agree even though they may have never met.

From those quotes, it is apparent that both Kant and Mussolini claimed that war had good results for society.

Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2019 14:30:59 GMT -5

Which still only means that war is necessary to achieve good things (a higher stage of culture), not that war itself is good.

Much like how Randians believe that *governments* are necessary to achieve good things (a free market), but that governments are not in principle a good thing in all circumstances.

Hello, McAnswer. We are talking about WAR here. War Always kills people. Government does not "always" kill people, especially if the death penalty is outlawed. Once again you are comparing Apples and Oranges.

Post by rmarks1 on Aug 16, 2019 16:36:48 GMT -5

Hello, McAnswer. We are talking about WAR here. War Always kills people. Government does not "always" kill people, especially if the death penalty is outlawed. Once again you are comparing Apples and Oranges.

The fact is that Kant justified WAR and war always kills.

Do you think the US shouldn't have gone to war against Nazi Germany?

Do you think human civilization is worse off for it?

Irrelevant. What does that have to do with any of the Positive Things Kant or Mussolini wrote about war?

Post by rmarks1 on Aug 17, 2019 13:38:33 GMT -5

Irrelevant. What does that have to do with any of the Positive Things Kant or Mussolini wrote about war?

Bob

The issue of the US fighting a war against fascism is relevant to the question whether war can bring about positive things.

In your opinion, which of these two men do you think would have found a war against fascism justified?

Kant or Mussolini? Neither? Both? What do you think?

The question here is not "can war bring about positive things"?

The question is: did both Kant and Mussolini think that war is GENERALLY a positive thing?

There are 3 quotes from Kant that say that war is generally positive:

Here is Kant: “Man wills concord; but nature better knows what is good for the species: she wills discord.” (“Idea …” 32/21)

Kant again: “At the stage of culture at which the human race still stands, war is an indispensable means for bringing it to a still higher stage.” (“Speculative …” 58/121) Note the “indispensable.”

And again: “Thus, thanks be to nature for the incompatibility, for the distasteful, competitive vanity, for the insatiable desire to possess and also to rule. Without them, all of humanity’s excellent natural capacities would have lain eternally dormant.” (“Idea …” 32/21)

As for your questions, obviously Mussolini would have not found a war against Fascism justified because Mussolini was a Fascist! He would not have wanted a war against himself and the ideology he championed.

From the above quotes, Kant believed that war was a good thing for the species in general, so he probably would not have objected.

Post by rmarks1 on Aug 17, 2019 14:28:09 GMT -5

So how about you refute my claims and arguments before you assert something I already refuted?

No. You attempted to point it out. You didn't succeed.

You said: "Which still only means that war is necessary to achieve good things (a higher stage of culture), not that war itself is good."

The last quote shows the contrary. Kant wrote:

“Thus, thanks be to nature for the incompatibility, for the distasteful, competitive vanity, for the insatiable desire to possess and also to rule. Without them, all of humanity’s excellent natural capacities would have lain eternally dormant.” (“Idea …” 32/21)"

Since when does someone GIVE THANKS for something they find a distasteful necessity?

Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2019 4:24:13 GMT -5

So how about you refute my claims and arguments before you assert something I already refuted?

No. You attempted to point it out. You didn't succeed.

You said: "Which still only means that war is necessary to achieve good things (a higher stage of culture), not that war itself is good."

The last quote shows the contrary. Kant wrote:

“Thus, thanks be to nature for the incompatibility, for the distasteful, competitive vanity, for the insatiable desire to possess and also to rule. Without them, all of humanity’s excellent natural capacities would have lain eternally dormant.” (“Idea …” 32/21)"

Since when does someone GIVE THANKS for something they find a distasteful necessity?

Post by rmarks1 on Aug 19, 2019 8:10:49 GMT -5

You said: "Which still only means that war is necessary to achieve good things (a higher stage of culture), not that war itself is good."

The last quote shows the contrary. Kant wrote:

“Thus, thanks be to nature for the incompatibility, for the distasteful, competitive vanity, for the insatiable desire to possess and also to rule. Without them, all of humanity’s excellent natural capacities would have lain eternally dormant.” (“Idea …” 32/21)"

Since when does someone GIVE THANKS for something they find a distasteful necessity?

Bob

Where does Kant give thanks to war?

Kant clearly mentions and gives thanks for "the insatiable desire to possess and also to rule." I'd say that "war" is a pretty good fit here.

Especially when you combine that with another quote: “At the stage of culture at which the human race still stands, war is an indispensable means for bringing it to a still higher stage.” (“Speculative …” 58/121) Note the “indispensable.”

So one quote says that "war is an indispensable means" and the other quote gives thanks to nature for "distasteful, competitive vanity, for the insatiable desire to possess and also to rule."

So war is not only necessary to achieve good things. Kant is giving thanks for it.

Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2019 12:57:20 GMT -5

Kant clearly mentions and gives thanks for "the insatiable desire to possess and also to rule."

I'd say that "war" is a pretty good fit here.

Trade is fuelled by a desire to possess (i.e. to own and control totally) something one does not yet have.

How would people go about capitalist trade if nobody desired to own and control anything?

Especially when you combine that with another quote: “At the stage of culture at which the human race still stands, war is an indispensable means for bringing it to a still higher stage.” (“Speculative …” 58/121) Note the “indispensable.”

Yes. That means "necessary", not "desirable".

So one quote says that "war is an indispensable means" and the other quote gives thanks to nature for "distasteful, competitive vanity, for the insatiable desire to possess and also to rule."

Post by rmarks1 on Aug 19, 2019 14:16:17 GMT -5

Kant clearly mentions and gives thanks for "the insatiable desire to possess and also to rule."

I'd say that "war" is a pretty good fit here.

Trade is fuelled by a desire to possess (i.e. to own and control totally) something one does not yet have.

How would people go about capitalist trade if nobody desired to own and control anything?

You're not looking at the whole quote. Kant said "desire to possess and ALSO TO RULE." When you go shopping, are you driven by a "desire to rule?"

Especially when you combine that with another quote: “At the stage of culture at which the human race still stands, war is an indispensable means for bringing it to a still higher stage.” (“Speculative …” 58/121) Note the “indispensable.”

Yes. That means "necessary", not "desirable".

Kant also said he gives thanks. You don't give thanks to what is not desireable.

So one quote says that "war is an indispensable means" and the other quote gives thanks to nature for "distasteful, competitive vanity, for the insatiable desire to possess and also to rule."

Two quotes from two different books, published years apart, yes.

But one man said both quotes. And Kant never disavowed either one, did he?

Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2019 19:34:35 GMT -5

Trade is fuelled by a desire to possess (i.e. to own and control totally) something one does not yet have.

How would people go about capitalist trade if nobody desired to own and control anything?

You're not looking at the whole quote. Kant said "desire to possess and ALSO TO RULE." When you go shopping, are you driven by a "desire to rule?"

To rule is to have control over something. Ownership of property means having total control control over that property.

There is a reason land owners are called landlords. They are free to rule over the land they own.

Yes. That means "necessary", not "desirable".

Kant also said he gives thanks. You don't give thanks to what is not desireable.

You are mixing up quotes. The one you cited was this one: “At the stage of culture at which the human race still stands, war is an indispensable means for bringing it to a still higher stage.”

Note how there is no "thanks" in that one.

Two quotes from two different books, published years apart, yes.

But one man said both quotes. And Kant never disavowed either one, did he?

Why are you asking me? Why aren't you trying to find out for yourself?

I'm guessing you believe that you already know everything there is to know about Kant, is that correct? As far as I can tell, you still haven't read anything written by the man that hasn't been a quote posted by someone else. Do you have no libraries where you live?